AI Coding Using Python — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.
A video renderer is software that processes a video file and sends it sequentially to the video display controller card for display on a computer screen. An example of a video renderer, is the VMR-7 that was used by Microsoft's DirectShow. An example of a UNIX video renderer is the one container within GStreamer. Commonly used video renderers are: Enhanced Video Renderer VMR9 Renderless Haali's Video Renderer Madvr Video Renderer JRVR, a part of JRiver Media Center
Read more →
Scriptella is an open source extract transform load (ETL) and script execution tool written in Java. It allows the use of SQL or another scripting language suitable for the data source to perform required transformations. Scriptella does not offer any graphical user interface. == Typical use == Database migration. Database creation/update scripts. Cross-database ETL operations, import/export. Alternative for Ant
In the data analysis of time series, Time Warp Edit Distance (TWED) is a measure of similarity (or dissimilarity) between pairs of discrete time series, controlling the relative distortion of the time units of the two series using the physical notion of elasticity. In comparison to other distance measures, (e.g. DTW (dynamic time warping) or LCS (longest common subsequence problem)), TWED is a metric. Its computational time complexity is O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} , but can be drastically reduced in some specific situations by using a corridor to reduce the search space. Its memory space complexity can be reduced to O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} . It was first proposed in 2009 by P.-F. Marteau. == Definition == δ λ , ν ( A 1 p , B 1 q ) = M i n { δ λ , ν ( A 1 p − 1 , B 1 q ) + Γ ( a p ′ → Λ ) d e l e t e i n A δ λ , ν ( A 1 p − 1 , B 1 q − 1 ) + Γ ( a p ′ → b q ′ ) m a t c h o r s u b s t i t u t i o n δ λ , ν ( A 1 p , B 1 q − 1 ) + Γ ( Λ → b q ′ ) d e l e t e i n B {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p},B_{1}^{q})=Min{\begin{cases}\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p-1},B_{1}^{q})+\Gamma (a_{p}^{'}\to \Lambda )&{\rm {delete\ in\ A}}\\\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p-1},B_{1}^{q-1})+\Gamma (a_{p}^{'}\to b_{q}^{'})&{\rm {match\ or\ substitution}}\\\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p},B_{1}^{q-1})+\Gamma (\Lambda \to b_{q}^{'})&{\rm {delete\ in\ B}}\end{cases}}} whereas Γ ( α p ′ → Λ ) = d L P ( a p ′ , a p − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( t a p − t a p − 1 ) + λ {\displaystyle \Gamma (\alpha _{p}^{'}\to \Lambda )=d_{LP}(a_{p}^{'},a_{p-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (t_{a_{p}}-t_{a_{p-1}})+\lambda } Γ ( α p ′ → b q ′ ) = d L P ( a p ′ , b q ′ ) + d L P ( a p − 1 ′ , b q − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( | t a p − t b q | + | t a p − 1 − t b q − 1 | ) {\displaystyle \Gamma (\alpha _{p}^{'}\to b_{q}^{'})=d_{LP}(a_{p}^{'},b_{q}^{'})+d_{LP}(a_{p-1}^{'},b_{q-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (|t_{a_{p}}-t_{b_{q}}|+|t_{a_{p-1}}-t_{b_{q-1}}|)} Γ ( Λ → b q ′ ) = d L P ( b p ′ , b p − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( t b q − t b q − 1 ) + λ {\displaystyle \Gamma (\Lambda \to b_{q}^{'})=d_{LP}(b_{p}^{'},b_{p-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (t_{b_{q}}-t_{b_{q-1}})+\lambda } Whereas the recursion δ λ , ν {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }} is initialized as: δ λ , ν ( A 1 0 , B 1 0 ) = 0 , {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{0},B_{1}^{0})=0,} δ λ , ν ( A 1 0 , B 1 j ) = ∞ f o r j ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{0},B_{1}^{j})=\infty \ {\rm {{for\ }j\geq 1}}} δ λ , ν ( A 1 i , B 1 0 ) = ∞ f o r i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{i},B_{1}^{0})=\infty \ {\rm {{for\ }i\geq 1}}} with a 0 ′ = b 0 ′ = 0 {\displaystyle a'_{0}=b'_{0}=0} === Implementations === An implementation of the TWED algorithm in C with a Python wrapper is available at TWED is also implemented into the Time Series Subsequence Search Python package (TSSEARCH for short) available at [1]. An R implementation of TWED has been integrated into the TraMineR, a R package for mining, describing and visualizing sequences of states or events, and more generally discrete sequence data. Additionally, cuTWED is a CUDA- accelerated implementation of TWED which uses an improved algorithm due to G. Wright (2020). This method is linear in memory and massively parallelized. cuTWED is written in CUDA C/C++, comes with Python bindings, and also includes Python bindings for Marteau's reference C implementation. ==== Python ==== Backtracking, to find the most cost-efficient path: ==== MATLAB ==== Backtracking, to find the most cost-efficient path:
Read more →
Birkhoff's algorithm (also called Birkhoff-von-Neumann algorithm) is an algorithm for decomposing a bistochastic matrix into a convex combination of permutation matrices. It was published by Garrett Birkhoff in 1946. It has many applications. One such application is for the problem of fair random assignment: given a randomized allocation of items, Birkhoff's algorithm can decompose it into a lottery on deterministic allocations. == Terminology == A bistochastic matrix (also called: doubly-stochastic) is a matrix in which all elements are greater than or equal to 0 and the sum of the elements in each row and column equals 1. An example is the following 3-by-3 matrix: ( 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}0.2&0.3&0.5\\0.6&0.2&0.2\\0.2&0.5&0.3\end{pmatrix}}} A permutation matrix is a special case of a bistochastic matrix, in which each element is either 0 or 1 (so there is exactly one "1" in each row and each column). An example is the following 3-by-3 matrix: ( 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\0&0&1\\1&0&0\end{pmatrix}}} A Birkhoff decomposition (also called: Birkhoff-von-Neumann decomposition) of a bistochastic matrix is a presentation of it as a sum of permutation matrices with non-negative weights. For example, the above matrix can be presented as the following sum: 0.2 ( 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ) + 0.2 ( 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ) + 0.1 ( 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ) + 0.5 ( 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 ) {\displaystyle 0.2{\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\0&0&1\\1&0&0\end{pmatrix}}+0.2{\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&1&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}+0.1{\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\1&0&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}+0.5{\begin{pmatrix}0&0&1\\1&0&0\\0&1&0\end{pmatrix}}} Birkhoff's algorithm receives as input a bistochastic matrix and returns as output a Birkhoff decomposition. == Tools == A permutation set of an n-by-n matrix X is a set of n entries of X containing exactly one entry from each row and from each column. A theorem by Dénes Kőnig says that: Every bistochastic matrix has a permutation-set in which all entries are positive.The positivity graph of an n-by-n matrix X is a bipartite graph with 2n vertices, in which the vertices on one side are n rows and the vertices on the other side are the n columns, and there is an edge between a row and a column if the entry at that row and column is positive. A permutation set with positive entries is equivalent to a perfect matching in the positivity graph. A perfect matching in a bipartite graph can be found in polynomial time, e.g. using any algorithm for maximum cardinality matching. Kőnig's theorem is equivalent to the following:The positivity graph of any bistochastic matrix admits a perfect matching.A matrix is called scaled-bistochastic if all elements are non-negative, and the sum of each row and column equals c, where c is some positive constant. In other words, it is c times a bistochastic matrix. Since the positivity graph is not affected by scaling:The positivity graph of any scaled-bistochastic matrix admits a perfect matching. == Algorithm == Birkhoff's algorithm is a greedy algorithm: it greedily finds perfect matchings and removes them from the fractional matching. It works as follows. Let i = 1. Construct the positivity graph GX of X. Find a perfect matching in GX, corresponding to a positive permutation set in X. Let z[i] > 0 be the smallest entry in the permutation set. Let P[i] be a permutation matrix with 1 in the positive permutation set. Let X := X − z[i] P[i]. If X contains nonzero elements, Let i = i + 1 and go back to step 2. Otherwise, return the sum: z[1] P[1] + ... + z[2] P[2] + ... + z[i] P[i]. The algorithm is correct because, after step 6, the sum in each row and each column drops by z[i]. Therefore, the matrix X remains scaled-bistochastic. Therefore, in step 3, a perfect matching always exists. == Run-time complexity == By the selection of z[i] in step 4, in each iteration at least one element of X becomes 0. Therefore, the algorithm must end after at most n2 steps. However, the last step must simultaneously make n elements 0, so the algorithm ends after at most n2 − n + 1 steps, which implies O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} . In 1960, Joshnson, Dulmage and Mendelsohn showed that Birkhoff's algorithm actually ends after at most n2 − 2n + 2 steps, which is tight in general (that is, in some cases n2 − 2n + 2 permutation matrices may be required). == Application in fair division == In the fair random assignment problem, there are n objects and n people with different preferences over the objects. It is required to give an object to each person. To attain fairness, the allocation is randomized: for each (person, object) pair, a probability is calculated, such that the sum of probabilities for each person and for each object is 1. The probabilistic-serial procedure can compute the probabilities such that each agent, looking at the matrix of probabilities, prefers his row of probabilities over the rows of all other people (this property is called envy-freeness). This raises the question of how to implement this randomized allocation in practice? One cannot just randomize for each object separately, since this may result in allocations in which some people get many objects while other people get no objects. Here, Birkhoff's algorithm is useful. The matrix of probabilities, calculated by the probabilistic-serial algorithm, is bistochastic. Birkhoff's algorithm can decompose it into a convex combination of permutation matrices. Each permutation matrix represents a deterministic assignment, in which every agent receives exactly one object. The coefficient of each such matrix is interpreted as a probability; based on the calculated probabilities, it is possible to pick one assignment at random and implement it. == Extensions == The problem of computing the Birkhoff decomposition with the minimum number of terms has been shown to be NP-hard, but some heuristics for computing it are known. This theorem can be extended for the general stochastic matrix with deterministic transition matrices. Budish, Che, Kojima and Milgrom generalize Birkhoff's algorithm to non-square matrices, with some constraints on the feasible assignments. They also present a decomposition algorithm that minimizes the variance in the expected values. Vazirani generalizes Birkhoff's algorithm to non-bipartite graphs. Valls et al. showed that it is possible to obtain an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -approximate decomposition with O ( log ( 1 / ϵ 2 ) ) {\displaystyle O(\log(1/\epsilon ^{2}))} permutations.
Read more →
Joint constraints are rotational constraints on the joints of an artificial system. They are used in an inverse kinematics chain, in fields including 3D animation or robotics. Joint constraints can be implemented in a number of ways, but the most common method is to limit rotation about the X, Y and Z axis independently. An elbow, for instance, could be represented by limiting rotation on X and Z axis to 0 degrees, and constraining the Y-axis rotation to 130 degrees. To simulate joint constraints more accurately, dot-products can be used with an independent axis to repulse the child bones orientation from the unreachable axis. Limiting the orientation of the child bone to a border of vectors tangent to the surface of the joint, repulsing the child bone away from the border, can also be useful in the precise restriction of shoulder movement.
Read more →
Object storage (also known as object-based storage or blob storage) is a computer data storage approach that manages data as "blobs" or "objects", as opposed to other storage architectures like file systems, which manage data as a file hierarchy, and block storage, which manages data as blocks within sectors and tracks. Each object is typically associated with a variable amount of metadata, and a globally unique identifier. Object storage can be implemented at multiple levels, including the device level (object-storage device), the system level, and the interface level. In each case, object storage seeks to enable capabilities not addressed by other storage architectures, like interfaces that are directly programmable by the application, a namespace that can span multiple instances of physical hardware, and data-management functions like data replication and data distribution at object-level granularity. Object storage systems allow retention of massive amounts of unstructured data in which data is written once and read once (or many times). Object storage is used for purposes such as storing objects like videos and photos on Facebook, songs on Spotify, or files in online collaboration services, such as Dropbox. One of the limitations with object storage is that it is not intended for transactional data, as object storage was not designed to replace NAS file access and sharing; it does not support the locking and sharing mechanisms needed to maintain a single, accurately updated version of a file. == History == === Origins === Jim Starkey coined the term blob working at Digital Equipment Corporation to refer to opaque data entities. The terminology was adopted for Rdb/VMS. Blob is often humorously explained to be an abbreviation for binary large object. According to Starkey, this backronym arose when Terry McKiever, working in marketing at Apollo Computer felt that the term needed to be an abbreviation. McKiever began using the expansion basic large object. This was later eclipsed by the retroactive explanation of blobs as binary large objects. According to Starkey, "Blob don't stand for nothin'." Rejecting the acronym, he explained his motivation behind the coinage, saying, "A blob is the thing that ate Cincinnatti [sic], Cleveland, or whatever", referring to the 1958 science fiction film The Blob. In 1995, research led by Garth Gibson on Network-Attached Secure Disks first promoted the concept of splitting less common operations, like namespace manipulations, from common operations, like reads and writes, to optimize the performance and scale of both. In the same year, a Belgian company – FilePool – was established to build the basis for archiving functions. Object storage was proposed at Gibson's Carnegie Mellon University lab as a research project in 1996. Another key concept was abstracting the writes and reads of data to more flexible data containers (objects). Fine grained access control through object storage architecture was further described by one of the NASD team, Howard Gobioff, who later was one of the inventors of the Google File System. Other related work includes the Coda filesystem project at Carnegie Mellon, which started in 1987, and spawned the Lustre file system. There is also the OceanStore project at UC Berkeley, which started in 1999 and the Logistical Networking project at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, which started in 1998. In 1999, Gibson founded Panasas to commercialize the concepts developed by the NASD team. === Development === Seagate Technology played a central role in the development of object storage. According to the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA), "Object storage originated in the late 1990s: Seagate specifications from 1999 Introduced some of the first commands and how operating system effectively removed from consumption of the storage." A preliminary version of the "OBJECT BASED STORAGE DEVICES Command Set Proposal" dated 10/25/1999 was submitted by Seagate as edited by Seagate's Dave Anderson and was the product of work by the National Storage Industry Consortium (NSIC) including contributions by Carnegie Mellon University, Seagate, IBM, Quantum, and StorageTek. This paper was proposed to INCITS T-10 (International Committee for Information Technology Standards) with a goal to form a committee and design a specification based on the SCSI interface protocol. This defined objects as abstracted data, with unique identifiers and metadata, how objects related to file systems, along with many other innovative concepts. Anderson presented many of these ideas at the SNIA conference in October 1999. The presentation revealed an IP Agreement that had been signed in February 1997 between the original collaborators (with Seagate represented by Anderson and Chris Malakapalli) and covered the benefits of object storage, scalable computing, platform independence, and storage management. == Architecture == === Abstraction of storage === One of the design principles of object storage is to abstract some of the lower layers of storage away from the administrators and applications. Thus, data is exposed and managed as objects instead of blocks or (exclusively) files. Objects contain additional descriptive properties which can be used for better indexing or management. Administrators do not have to perform lower-level storage functions like constructing and managing logical volumes to utilize disk capacity or setting RAID levels to deal with disk failure. Object storage also allows the addressing and identification of individual objects by more than just file name and file path. Object storage adds a unique identifier within a bucket, or across the entire system, to support much larger namespaces and eliminate name collisions. === Inclusion of rich custom metadata within the object === Object storage explicitly separates file metadata from data to support additional capabilities. As opposed to fixed metadata in file systems (filename, creation date, type, etc.), object storage provides for full function, custom, object-level metadata in order to: Capture application-specific or user-specific information for better indexing purposes Support data-management policies (e.g. a policy to drive object movement from one storage tier to another) Centralize management of storage across many individual nodes and clusters Optimize metadata storage (e.g. encapsulated, database or key value storage) and caching/indexing (when authoritative metadata is encapsulated with the metadata inside the object) independently from the data storage (e.g. unstructured binary storage) Additionally, in some object-based file-system implementations: The file system clients only contact metadata servers once when the file is opened and then get content directly via object-storage servers (vs. block-based file systems which would require constant metadata access) Data objects can be configured on a per-file basis to allow adaptive stripe width, even across multiple object-storage servers, supporting optimizations in bandwidth and I/O Object-based storage devices (OSD) as well as some software implementations (e.g., DataCore Swarm) manage metadata and data at the storage device level: Instead of providing a block-oriented interface that reads and writes fixed sized blocks of data, data is organized into flexible-sized data containers, called objects Each object has both data (an uninterpreted sequence of bytes) and metadata (an extensible set of attributes describing the object); physically encapsulating both together benefits recoverability. The command interface includes commands to create and delete objects, write bytes and read bytes to and from individual objects, and to set and get attributes on objects Security mechanisms provide per-object and per-command access control === Programmatic data management === Object storage provides programmatic interfaces to allow applications to manipulate data. At the base level, this includes Create, read, update and delete (CRUD) functions for basic read, write and delete operations. Some object storage implementations go further, supporting additional functionality like object/file versioning, object replication, life-cycle management and movement of objects between different tiers and types of storage. Most API implementations are REST-based, allowing the use of many standard HTTP calls. == Implementation == === Cloud storage === The vast majority of cloud storage available in the market leverages an object-storage architecture. Some notable examples are Amazon S3, which debuted in March 2006, Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, IBM Cloud Object Storage, Rackspace Cloud Files (whose code was donated in 2010 to Openstack project and released as OpenStack Swift), and Google Cloud Storage released in May 2010. === Object-based file systems === Some distributed file systems use an object-based architecture, where file metadata is stored in metadata servers and file data is stored i
Read more →
FAIR data is data which meets the 2016 FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). The FAIR principles emphasize machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in the volume, complexity, and rate of production of data. The abbreviation FAIR/O data is sometimes used to indicate that the dataset or database in question complies with the FAIR principles and also carries an explicit data‑capable open license. == FAIR principles published by GO FAIR == Findable The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the FAIRification process. F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below) F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe F4. (Meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource Accessible Once the user finds the required data, they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation. A1. (Meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardised communications protocol A1.1 The protocol is open, free, and universally implementable A1.2 The protocol allows for an authentication and authorisation procedure, where necessary A2. Metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available Interoperable The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing. I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data Reusable The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings. R1. (Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. For instance, principle F4 defines that both metadata and data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource (the infrastructure component). === Acceptance and implementation === Before FAIR, a 2007 OECD report was the most influential paper discussing similar ideas related to data accessibility. In January 2014, the Lorentz Centre at Leiden University hosted a workshop entitled "Jointly designing a data FAIRPORT" where the participants first formulated the FAIR principles. After further discussions, they were published in the March 2016 issue of Scientific Data. At the 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit, the G20 leaders issued a statement endorsing the application of FAIR principles to research. Also in 2016, a group of Australian organisations developed a Statement on FAIR Access to Australia's Research Outputs, which aimed to extend the principles to research outputs more generally. In 2017, Germany, Netherlands and France agreed to establish an international office to support the FAIR initiative, the GO FAIR International Support and Coordination Office. Other international organisations active in the research data ecosystem, such as CODATA or Research Data Alliance (RDA) also support FAIR implementations by their communities. FAIR principles implementation assessment is being explored by FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group of RDA, CODATA's strategic Decadal Programme "Data for Planet: Making data work for cross-domain challenges" mentions FAIR data principles as a fundamental enabler of data driven science. The Association of European Research Libraries recommends the use of FAIR principles. A 2017 paper by advocates of FAIR data reported that awareness of the FAIR concept was increasing among various researchers and institutes, but also, understanding of the concept was becoming confused as different people apply their own differing perspectives to it. Guides on implementing FAIR data practices state that the cost of a data management plan in compliance with FAIR data practices should be 5% of the total research budget. In 2019 the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) released the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance as a complementary guide. The CARE principles extend principles outlined in FAIR data to include Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics to ensure data guidelines address historical contexts and power differentials. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance were drafted at the International Data Week and Research Data Alliance Plenary co-hosted event, "Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles for the Governance of Indigenous Data Workshop", held 8 November 2018, in Gaborone, Botswana. The lack of information on how to implement the guidelines have led to inconsistent interpretations of them. In January 2020, representatives of nine groups of universities around the world produced the Sorbonne declaration on research data rights, which included a commitment to FAIR data, and called on governments to provide support to enable it. In 2021, researchers identified the FAIR principles as a conceptual component of data catalog software tools, with the other components being metadata management, business context and data responsibility roles. In April 2022, Matthias Scheffler and colleagues argued in Nature that FAIR principles are "a must" so that data mining and artificial intelligence can extract useful scientific information from the data. There have been moves in the geosciences to establish FAIR data by use of decimal georeferencing However, making data (and research outcomes) FAIR is a challenging task, and it is challenging to assess the FAIRness. In 2020, the FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group published a set of guidelines for assessing "FAIRness".
Read more →
Ontology alignment, or ontology matching, is the process of determining correspondences between concepts in ontologies. A set of correspondences is also called an alignment. The phrase takes on a slightly different meaning, in computer science, cognitive science or philosophy. == Computer science == For computer scientists, concepts are expressed as labels for data. Historically, the need for ontology alignment arose out of the need to integrate heterogeneous databases, ones developed independently and thus each having their own data vocabulary. In the Semantic Web context involving many actors providing their own ontologies, ontology matching has taken a critical place for helping heterogeneous resources to interoperate. Ontology alignment tools find classes of data that are semantically equivalent, for example, "truck" and "lorry". The classes are not necessarily logically identical. According to Euzenat and Shvaiko (2007), there are three major dimensions for similarity: syntactic, external, and semantic. Coincidentally, they roughly correspond to the dimensions identified by Cognitive Scientists below. A number of tools and frameworks have been developed for aligning ontologies, some with inspiration from Cognitive Science and some independently. Ontology alignment tools have generally been developed to operate on database schemas, XML schemas, taxonomies, formal languages, entity-relationship models, dictionaries, and other label frameworks. They are usually converted to a graph representation before being matched. Since the emergence of the Semantic Web, such graphs can be represented in the Resource Description Framework line of languages by triples of the form
Sports Card Investor is an American sports collectibles media platform and mobile application founded by Geoff Wilson. The platform provides market data, analysis, and editorial content focused on sports trading cards and related collectibles. It operates a website, mobile app, and digital media channels covering developments in the sports card industry. The company posted its first YouTube video in July 2019, shortly before a period of rapid growth in sports card collecting in the early 2020s, which was marked by increased trading volumes and mainstream media attention. == History == Sports Card Investor was founded by Geoff Wilson, an entrepreneur and collector who began publishing sports card–related content online before launching the platform's dedicated app and subscription tools. In February 2020, the company launched Market Movers, the first website and app to chart sports card prices and track card collections. The platform expanded its media presence through partnerships and distribution agreements. In 2023, Yahoo Sports announced a new collectibles coverage initiative that included additional content from Sports Card Investor. In February 2024, the Sports Card Investor studio relocated to CardsHQ in Atlanta, Georgia, and visitors to the facility can watch Sports Card Investor videos being filmed. == Platform and content == The Sports Card Investor app provides users with pricing data, portfolio-tracking tools, and market-trend analysis for trading cards. The company also produces video and editorial content discussing market developments, grading trends, and major card releases. Coverage in industry publications has referenced Sports Card Investor in discussions about shifts in sports card licensing rights and hobby market reactions. == Industry context == The growth of Sports Card Investor coincided with a broader resurgence in trading card markets, including record sales and expanded retail presence. Mainstream outlets have cited the company and its founder in reporting on collectibles investing trends, grading practices, and market volatility. The Sports Card Investor app has attracted over 37,000 reviews on the Apple App Store, reflecting its strong user engagement within the sports card community.
Read more →
Broadcast is a collective communication primitive in parallel programming to distribute programming instructions or data to nodes in a cluster. It is the reverse operation of reduction. The broadcast operation is widely used in parallel algorithms, such as matrix-vector multiplication, Gaussian elimination and shortest paths. The Message Passing Interface implements broadcast in MPI_Bcast. == Definition == A message M [ 1.. m ] {\displaystyle M[1..m]} of length m {\displaystyle m} should be distributed from one node to all other p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} nodes. T byte {\displaystyle T_{\text{byte}}} is the time it takes to send one byte. T start {\displaystyle T_{\text{start}}} is the time it takes for a message to travel to another node, independent of its length. Therefore, the time to send a package from one node to another is t = s i z e × T byte + T start {\displaystyle t=\mathrm {size} \times T_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}}} . p {\displaystyle p} is the number of nodes and the number of processors. == Binomial Tree Broadcast == With Binomial Tree Broadcast the whole message is sent at once. Each node that has already received the message sends it on further. This grows exponentially as each time step the amount of sending nodes is doubled. The algorithm is ideal for short messages but falls short with longer ones as during the time when the first transfer happens only one node is busy. Sending a message to all nodes takes log 2 ( p ) t {\displaystyle \log _{2}(p)t} time which results in a runtime of log 2 ( p ) ( m T byte + T start ) {\displaystyle \log _{2}(p)(mT_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}})} == Linear Pipeline Broadcast == The message is split up into k {\displaystyle k} packages and sent piecewise from node n {\displaystyle n} to node n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} . The time needed to distribute the first message piece is p t = m k T byte + T start {\textstyle pt={\frac {m}{k}}T_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}}} whereby t {\displaystyle t} is the time needed to send a package from one processor to another. Sending a whole message takes ( p + k ) ( m T byte k + T start ) = ( p + k ) t = p t + k t {\displaystyle (p+k)\left({\frac {mT_{\text{byte}}}{k}}+T_{\text{start}}\right)=(p+k)t=pt+kt} . Optimal is to choose k = m ( p − 2 ) T byte T start {\displaystyle k={\sqrt {\frac {m(p-2)T_{\text{byte}}}{T_{\text{start}}}}}} resulting in a runtime of approximately m T byte + p T start + m p T start T byte {\displaystyle mT_{\text{byte}}+pT_{\text{start}}+{\sqrt {mpT_{\text{start}}T_{\text{byte}}}}} The run time is dependent on not only message length but also the number of processors that play roles. This approach shines when the length of the message is much larger than the amount of processors. == Pipelined Binary Tree Broadcast == This algorithm combines Binomial Tree Broadcast and Linear Pipeline Broadcast, which makes the algorithm work well for both short and long messages. The aim is to have as many nodes work as possible while maintaining the ability to send short messages quickly. A good approach is to use Fibonacci trees for splitting up the tree, which are a good choice as a message cannot be sent to both children at the same time. This results in a binary tree structure. We will assume in the following that communication is full-duplex. The Fibonacci tree structure has a depth of about d ≈ log Φ ( p ) {\displaystyle d\approx \log _{\Phi }(p)} whereby Φ = 1 + 5 2 {\displaystyle \Phi ={\frac {1+{\sqrt {5}}}{2}}} the golden ratio. The resulting runtime is ( m k T byte + T start ) ( d + 2 k − 2 ) {\textstyle ({\frac {m}{k}}T_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}})(d+2k-2)} . Optimal is k = n ( d − 2 ) T byte 3 T start {\displaystyle k={\sqrt {\frac {n(d-2)T_{\text{byte}}}{3T_{\text{start}}}}}} . This results in a runtime of 2 m T byte + T start log Φ ( p ) + 2 m log Φ ( p ) T start T byte {\displaystyle 2mT_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}}\log _{\Phi }(p)+{\sqrt {2m\log _{\Phi }(p)T_{\text{start}}T_{\text{byte}}}}} . == Two Tree Broadcast (23-Broadcast) == === Definition === This algorithm aims to improve on some disadvantages of tree structure models with pipelines. Normally in tree structure models with pipelines (see above methods), leaves receive just their data and cannot contribute to send and spread data. The algorithm concurrently uses two binary trees to communicate over. Those trees will be called tree A and B. Structurally in binary trees there are relatively more leave nodes than inner nodes. Basic Idea of this algorithm is to make a leaf node of tree A be an inner node of tree B. It has also the same technical function in opposite side from B to A tree. This means, two packets are sent and received by inner nodes and leaves in different steps. === Tree construction === The number of steps needed to construct two parallel-working binary trees is dependent on the amount of processors. Like with other structures one processor can is the root node who sends messages to two trees. It is not necessary to set a root node, because it is not hard to recognize that the direction of sending messages in binary tree is normally top to bottom. There is no limitation on the number of processors to build two binary trees. Let the height of the combined tree be h = ⌈log(p + 2)⌉. Tree A and B can have a height of h − 1 {\displaystyle h-1} . Especially, if the number of processors correspond to p = 2 h − 1 {\displaystyle p=2^{h}-1} , we can make both sides trees and a root node. To construct this model efficiently and easily with a fully built tree, we can use two methods called "Shifting" and "Mirroring" to get second tree. Let assume tree A is already modeled and tree B is supposed to be constructed based on tree A. We assume that we have p {\displaystyle p} processors ordered from 0 to p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} . ==== Shifting ==== The "Shifting" method, first copies tree A and moves every node one position to the left to get tree B. The node, which will be located on -1, becomes a child of processor p − 2 {\displaystyle p-2} . ==== Mirroring ==== "Mirroring" is ideal for an even number of processors. With this method tree B can be more easily constructed by tree A, because there are no structural transformations in order to create the new tree. In addition, a symmetric process makes this approach simple. This method can also handle an odd number of processors, in this case, we can set processor p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} as root node for both trees. For the remaining processors "Mirroring" can be used. === Coloring === We need to find a schedule in order to make sure that no processor has to send or receive two messages from two trees in a step. The edge, is a communication connection to connect two nodes, and can be labelled as either 0 or 1 to make sure that every processor can alternate between 0 and 1-labelled edges. The edges of A and B can be colored with two colors (0 and 1) such that no processor is connected to its parent nodes in A and B using edges of the same color- no processor is connected to its children nodes in A or B using edges of the same color. In every even step the edges with 0 are activated and edges with 1 are activated in every odd step. === Time complexity === In this case the number of packet k is divided in half for each tree. Both trees are working together the total number of packets k = k / 2 + k / 2 {\displaystyle k=k/2+k/2} (upper tree + bottom tree) In each binary tree sending a message to another nodes takes 2 i {\displaystyle 2i} steps until a processor has at least a packet in step i {\displaystyle i} . Therefore, we can calculate all steps as d := log 2 ( p + 1 ) ⇒ log 2 ( p + 1 ) ≈ log 2 ( p ) {\displaystyle d:=\log _{2}(p+1)\Rightarrow \log _{2}(p+1)\approx \log _{2}(p)} . The resulting run time is T ( m , p , k ) ≈ ( m k T byte + T start ) ( 2 d + k − 1 ) {\textstyle T(m,p,k)\approx ({\frac {m}{k}}T_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}})(2d+k-1)} . (Optimal k = m ( 2 d − 1 ) T byte / T start {\textstyle k={\sqrt {{m(2d-1)T_{\text{byte}}}/{T_{\text{start}}}}}} ) This results in a run time of T ( m , p ) ≈ m T byte + T start ⋅ 2 log 2 ( p ) + m ⋅ 2 log 2 ( p ) T start T byte {\displaystyle T(m,p)\approx mT_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}}\cdot 2\log _{2}(p)+{\sqrt {m\cdot 2\log _{2}(p)T_{\text{start}}T_{\text{byte}}}}} . == ESBT-Broadcasting (Edge-disjoint Spanning Binomial Trees) == In this section, another broadcasting algorithm with an underlying telephone communication model will be introduced. A Hypercube creates network system with p = 2 d ( d = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , . . . ) {\displaystyle p=2^{d}(d=0,1,2,3,...)} . Every node is represented by binary 0 , 1 {\displaystyle {0,1}} depending on the number of dimensions. Fundamentally ESBT(Edge-disjoint Spanning Binomial Trees) is based on hypercube graphs, pipelining( m {\displaystyle m} messages are divided by k {\displaystyle k} packets) and binomial trees. The Processor 0 d {\displaystyle 0^{d}} cyclically spreads packets to roots of ESB
Read more →
In computer science, a holographic algorithm is an algorithm that uses a holographic reduction. A holographic reduction is a constant-time reduction that maps solution fragments many-to-many such that the sum of the solution fragments remains unchanged. These concepts were introduced by Leslie Valiant, who called them holographic because "their effect can be viewed as that of producing interference patterns among the solution fragments". The algorithms are unrelated to laser holography, except metaphorically. Their power comes from the mutual cancellation of many contributions to a sum, analogous to the interference patterns in a hologram. Holographic algorithms have been used to find polynomial-time solutions to problems without such previously known solutions for special cases of satisfiability, vertex cover, and other graph problems. They have received notable coverage due to speculation that they are relevant to the P versus NP problem and their impact on computational complexity theory. Although some of the general problems are #P-hard problems, the special cases solved are not themselves #P-hard, and thus do not prove FP = #P. Holographic algorithms have some similarities with quantum computation, but are completely classical. == Holant problems == Holographic algorithms exist in the context of Holant problems, which generalize counting constraint satisfaction problems (#CSP). A #CSP instance is a hypergraph G=(V,E) called the constraint graph. Each hyperedge represents a variable and each vertex v {\displaystyle v} is assigned a constraint f v . {\displaystyle f_{v}.} A vertex is connected to an hyperedge if the constraint on the vertex involves the variable on the hyperedge. The counting problem is to compute ∑ σ : E → { 0 , 1 } ∏ v ∈ V f v ( σ | E ( v ) ) , ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{\sigma :E\to \{0,1\}}\prod _{v\in V}f_{v}(\sigma |_{E(v)}),~~~~~~~~~~(1)} which is a sum over all variable assignments, the product of every constraint, where the inputs to the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} are the variables on the incident hyperedges of v {\displaystyle v} . A Holant problem is like a #CSP except the input must be a graph, not a hypergraph. Restricting the class of input graphs in this way is indeed a generalization. Given a #CSP instance, replace each hyperedge e of size s with a vertex v of degree s with edges incident to the vertices contained in e. The constraint on v is the equality function of arity s. This identifies all of the variables on the edges incident to v, which is the same effect as the single variable on the hyperedge e. In the context of Holant problems, the expression in (1) is called the Holant after a related exponential sum introduced by Valiant. == Holographic reduction == A standard technique in complexity theory is a many-one reduction, where an instance of one problem is reduced to an instance of another (hopefully simpler) problem. However, holographic reductions between two computational problems preserve the sum of solutions without necessarily preserving correspondences between solutions. For instance, the total number of solutions in both sets can be preserved, even though individual problems do not have matching solutions. The sum can also be weighted, rather than simply counting the number of solutions, using linear basis vectors. === General example === It is convenient to consider holographic reductions on bipartite graphs. A general graph can always be transformed it into a bipartite graph while preserving the Holant value. This is done by replacing each edge in the graph by a path of length 2, which is also known as the 2-stretch of the graph. To keep the same Holant value, each new vertex is assigned the binary equality constraint. Consider a bipartite graph G=(U,V,E) where the constraint assigned to every vertex u ∈ U {\displaystyle u\in U} is f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} and the constraint assigned to every vertex v ∈ V {\displaystyle v\in V} is f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} . Denote this counting problem by Holant ( G , f u , f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v}).} If the vertices in U are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is the tensor product of f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} with itself |U| times, which is denoted by f u ⊗ | U | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}.} Likewise, if the vertices in V are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Let the constraint f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a row vector and the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a column vector. Then the Holant of this constraint graph is simply f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Now for any complex 2-by-2 invertible matrix T (the columns of which are the linear basis vectors mentioned above), there is a holographic reduction between Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v}).} To see this, insert the identity matrix T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | {\displaystyle T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}} in between f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} to get f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = f u ⊗ | U | T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) ) ⊗ | U | ( f v ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) ) ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle =\left(f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(f_{v}(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}\right)^{\otimes |V|}.} Thus, Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v})} have exactly the same Holant value for every constraint graph. They essentially define the same counting problem. === Specific examples === ==== Vertex covers and independent sets ==== Let G be a graph. There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the vertex covers of G and the independent sets of G. For any set S of vertices of G, S is a vertex cover in G if and only if the complement of S is an independent set in G. Thus, the number of vertex covers in G is exactly the same as the number of independent sets in G. The equivalence of these two counting problems can also be proved using a holographic reduction. For simplicity, let G be a 3-regular graph. The 2-stretch of G gives a bipartite graph H=(U,V,E), where U corresponds to the edges in G and V corresponds to the vertices in G. The Holant problem that naturally corresponds to counting the number of vertex covers in G is Holant ( H , OR 2 , EQUAL 3 ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(H,{\text{OR}}_{2},{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}).} The truth table of OR2 as a row vector is (0,1,1,1). The truth table of EQUAL3 as a column vector is ( 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 ) T = [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 {\displaystyle (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1)^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}} . Then under a holographic transformation by [ 0 1 1 0 ] , {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}},} OR 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle {\text{OR}}_{2}^{\otimes |U|}{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ 2 ) ⊗ | U | ( ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 1 0 ] ) ⊗ 3 + ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ) ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =\left((0,1,1,1){\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 2}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}+\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(1,1,1,0)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = NAND 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | , {\displaystyle ={\text{NAND}}_{2}^{\otim
Read more →
Knowledge organization system (KOS), concept system, or concept scheme is the generic term used in knowledge organization (KO) for the selection of concepts with an indication of selected semantic relations. Despite their differences in type, coverage, and application, all KOS aim to support the organization of knowledge and information to facilitate their management and retrieval. KOS vary in complexity from simple sorted lists to complex relational networks. They represent both structural and functional features, and serve to eliminate ambiguity, control synonyms, establish relationships, and present properties. From their origins in library and information science (LIS), KOS have been applied to other domains and disciplines within science and industry, although scholarly research and debate remain primarily within the KO field. Challenges of KOS include ambiguity of terminology, repercussions of biased systems, and potential obsolescence. KOS can be expressed in RDF and RDFS as per the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) recommendation by W3C, which aims to enable the sharing and linking of KOS via the Web. One of the largest collections of KOS is the BARTOC registry. == Types == While different schema of KOS have been proposed, most are generally arranged in terms of the complexity of their construction and maintenance. Some scholars argue that organizing KOS on a spectrum oversimplifies the shared characteristics among them, and may even result in a non-ideal structure being chosen. The following types are not exhaustive, and are often not mutually-exclusive in practice. === Term lists === Term lists are the least structured form of KOS. They include lists, glossaries, dictionaries, and synonym rings. Authority files and gazetteers may also be considered term lists, however other scholars categorize them and directories as "metadata-like models". Examples include the Union List of Artist Names name authority file and the GeoNames gazetteer. === Categorization and classification === KOS that emphasize specific (and often hierarchical) structures include subject headings, taxonomies, categorization schema, and classification schema & systems. Despite inconsistent use of the terms "categorization" and "classification" in some literature, categorization is generally loosely-assembled grouping schema and may include attributes that are not mutually exclusive (or having fuzzy boundaries), while classification is related to the arrangement of non-overlapping and mutually-exclusive classes. Classification schema may be universal (such as Dewey Decimal Classification and Information Coding Classification) or domain-specific (such as the National Library of Medicine Classification). === Relationship models === The types of KOS with greatest complexity and which utilize connections between concepts include thesauri, semantic networks, and ontologies. One of the most prominent examples of a semantic network is WordNet. === Others === Certain structures proposed to be considered types of KOS—but are not consistently included in schema—include folksonomies, topic maps, web directory structures, publication organization systems, and bibliometric maps. Some KOS organize other KOS themselves—for instance, PeriodO is a gazetteer of periodization categories. == Applications == Some early KOS were developed as a support system for abstracting and indexing services to be used by specially-trained searchers. With the growth of information digitization, usability became increasingly accessible, and more complex structures were developed. Prominent examples of KOS outside of LIS include organism taxonomy in biology, the periodic table of elements in chemistry, SIC and NAICS classification systems for industry & business, and AGROVOC agricultural controlled vocabulary. == Challenges == The study and design of KOS is an ongoing topic of discussion among KO scholars. === Terminology === [There is] a serious lack of vocabulary control in the literature on controlled vocabulary. Inconsistency of terminology within the study of KOS is a common issue. For instance, "ontology" is used for both a specific type of KOS as well as a generic term for any KOS. The terms "taxonomy", "classification", and "categorization" are also sometimes used interchangeably. === Bias === As knowledge can be historically and culturally biased, scholars have also discussed how KOS themselves can perpetuate harmful practices or stereotypes. For example, a number of concerns and criticisms about the classification of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders have been raised, contributing to ongoing revisions. Ethical and intentional design approaches have been proposed for multi-perspective KOS in efforts to mitigate bias and other harmful practices. === Obsolescence === The possible obsolescence of the thesaurus and other simpler KOS has been the topic of debate, especially in the face of increasingly complex ontologies, the growing usage of "Google-like retrieval systems", and the move of KO theory and research away from LIS and toward computer science. Supporters of thesauri argue its continued usefulness for metadata enrichment, vocabulary mapping, and web services, as well as its usage in specific domains such as corporate intranets and digital image libraries.
Read more →
Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world (they are called ontic events): for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world (they are called epistemic events): for example, a card is revealed publicly (or privately) to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. Only some of the basic ideas are present in this entry of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references. Due to the nature of its object of study and its abstract approach, DEL is related and has applications to numerous research areas, such as computer science (artificial intelligence), philosophy (formal epistemology), economics (game theory) and cognitive science. In computer science, DEL is for example very much related to multi-agent systems, which are systems where multiple intelligent agents interact and exchange information. As a combination of dynamic logic and epistemic logic, dynamic epistemic logic is a young field of research. It really started in 1989 with Plaza's logic of public announcement. Independently, Gerbrandy and Groeneveld proposed a system dealing moreover with private announcement and that was inspired by the work of Veltman. Another system was proposed by van Ditmarsch whose main inspiration was the Cluedo game. But the most influential and original system was the system proposed by Baltag, Moss and Solecki. This system can deal with all the types of situations studied in the works above and its underlying methodology is conceptually grounded. This entry will present some of its basic ideas. Formally, DEL extends ordinary epistemic logic by the inclusion of event models to describe actions, and a product update operator that defines how epistemic models are updated as the consequence of executing actions described through event models. Epistemic logic will first be recalled. Then, actions and events will enter into the picture and we will introduce the DEL framework. == Epistemic logic == Epistemic logic is a modal logic dealing with the notions of knowledge and belief. As a logic, it is concerned with understanding the process of reasoning about knowledge and belief: which principles relating the notions of knowledge and belief are intuitively plausible? Like epistemology, it stems from the Greek word ϵ π ι σ τ η μ η {\displaystyle \epsilon \pi \iota \sigma \tau \eta \mu \eta } or ‘episteme’ meaning knowledge. Epistemology is nevertheless more concerned with analyzing the very nature and scope of knowledge, addressing questions such as “What is the definition of knowledge?” or “How is knowledge acquired?”. In fact, epistemic logic grew out of epistemology in the Middle Ages thanks to the efforts of Burley and Ockham. The formal work, based on modal logic, that inaugurated contemporary research into epistemic logic dates back only to 1962 and is due to Hintikka. It then sparked in the 1960s discussions about the principles of knowledge and belief and many axioms for these notions were proposed and discussed. For example, the interaction axioms K p → B p {\displaystyle Kp\rightarrow Bp} and B p → K B p {\displaystyle Bp\rightarrow KBp} are often considered to be intuitive principles: if an agent Knows p {\displaystyle p} then (s)he also Believes p {\displaystyle p} , or if an agent Believes p {\displaystyle p} , then (s)he Knows that (s)he Believes p {\displaystyle p} . More recently, these kinds of philosophical theories were taken up by researchers in economics, artificial intelligence and theoretical computer science where reasoning about knowledge is a central topic. Due to the new setting in which epistemic logic was used, new perspectives and new features such as computability issues were then added to the research agenda of epistemic logic. === Syntax === In the sequel, A G T S = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle AGTS=\{1,\ldots ,n\}} is a finite set whose elements are called agents and P R O P {\displaystyle PROP} is a set of propositional letters. The epistemic language is an extension of the basic multi-modal language of modal logic with a common knowledge operator C A {\displaystyle C_{A}} and a distributed knowledge operator D A {\displaystyle D_{A}} . Formally, the epistemic language L EL C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}} is defined inductively by the following grammar in BNF: L EL C : ϕ ::= p ∣ ¬ ϕ ∣ ( ϕ ∧ ϕ ) ∣ K j ϕ ∣ C A ϕ ∣ D A ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\textsf {EL}}^{C}:\phi ~~::=~~p~\mid ~\neg \phi ~\mid ~(\phi \land \phi )~\mid ~K_{j}\phi ~\mid ~C_{A}\phi ~\mid ~D_{A}\phi } where p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} , j ∈ A G T S {\displaystyle j\in {AGTS}} and A ⊆ A G T S {\displaystyle A\subseteq {AGTS}} . The basic epistemic language L E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}} is the language L E L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EL}^{C}} without the common knowledge and distributed knowledge operators. The formula ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is an abbreviation for ¬ p ∧ p {\displaystyle \neg p\land p} (for a given p ∈ P R O P {\displaystyle p\in PROP} ), ⟨ K j ⟩ ϕ {\displaystyle \langle K_{j}\rangle \phi } is an abbreviation for ¬ K j ¬ ϕ {\displaystyle \neg K_{j}\neg \phi } , E A ϕ {\displaystyle E_{A}\phi } is an abbreviation for ⋀ j ∈ A K j ϕ {\displaystyle \bigwedge \limits _{j\in A}K_{j}\phi } and C ϕ {\displaystyle C\phi } an abbreviation for C A G T S ϕ {\displaystyle C_{AGTS}\phi } . Group notions: general, common and distributed knowledge. In a multi-agent setting there are three important epistemic concepts: general knowledge, distributed knowledge and common knowledge. The notion of common knowledge was first studied by Lewis in the context of conventions. It was then applied to distributed systems and to game theory, where it allows to express that the rationality of the players, the rules of the game and the set of players are commonly known. General knowledge. General knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody in the group of agents A G T S {\displaystyle {AGTS}} knows that ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . Formally, this corresponds to the following formula: E ϕ := ⋀ j ∈ A G T S K j ϕ . {\displaystyle E\phi :={\underset {j\in {AGTS}}{\bigwedge }}K_{j}\phi .} Common knowledge. Common knowledge of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } means that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } but also that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , that everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , and so on ad infinitum. Formally, this corresponds to the following formula C ϕ := E ϕ ∧ E E ϕ ∧ E E E ϕ ∧ … {\displaystyle C\phi :=E\phi \land EE\phi \land EEE\phi \land \ldots } As we do not allow infinite conjunction the notion of common knowledge will have to be introduced as a primitive in our language. Before defining the language with this new operator, we are going to give an example introduced by Lewis that illustrates the difference between the notions of general knowledge and common knowledge. Lewis wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that the statement p {\displaystyle p} : “every driver must drive on the right” be a convention among a group of agents. In other words, he wanted to know what kind of knowledge is needed so that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Suppose there are only two agents i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} . Then everybody knowing p {\displaystyle p} (formally E p {\displaystyle Ep} ) is not enough. Indeed, it might still be possible that the agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that the agent j {\displaystyle j} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}p} ). In that case the agent i {\displaystyle i} will not feel safe to drive on the right because he might consider that the agent j {\displaystyle j} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , could drive on the left. To avoid this problem, we could then assume that everybody knows that everybody knows that p {\displaystyle p} (formally E E p {\displaystyle EEp} ). This is again not enough to ensure that everybody feels safe to drive on the right. Indeed, it might still be possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} considers possible that agent j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that agent i {\displaystyle i} does not know p {\displaystyle p} (formally ¬ K i K j K i p {\displaystyle \neg K_{i}K_{j}K_{i}p} ). In that case and from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} considers possible that i {\displaystyle i} , not knowing p {\displaystyle p} , will drive on the left. So from i {\displaystyle i} ’s point of view, j {\displaystyle j} might drive on the left as well (by the same argument as abov
Read more →
Web data integration (WDI) is the process of aggregating and managing data from different websites into a single, homogeneous workflow. This process includes data access, transformation, mapping, quality assurance and fusion of data. Data that is sourced and structured from websites is referred to as "web data". WDI is an extension and specialization of data integration that views the web as a collection of heterogeneous databases. Data integration techniques in the context of the web, forms the foundation for businesses taking advantage of data available on the ever-increasing number of publicly-accessible websites. Corporate spending on this area amounted to about USD 2.5bn in 2017, and it is expected that by 2020 the market will reach almost USD 7bn.
Read more →
An ordered key–value store (OKVS) is a type of data storage paradigm that can support multi-model databases. An OKVS is an ordered mapping of bytes to bytes. An OKVS will keep the key–value pairs sorted by the key lexicographic order. OKVS systems provides different set of features and performance trade-offs. Most of them are shipped as a library without network interfaces, in order to be embedded in another process. Most OKVS support ACID guarantees. Some OKVS are distributed databases. Ordered key–value stores found their way into many modern database systems including NewSQL database systems. == History == The origin of ordered key–value store stems from the work of Ken Thompson on dbm in 1979. Later in 1991, Berkeley DB was released that featured a B-Tree backend that allowed the keys to stay sorted. Berkeley DB was said to be very fast and made its way into various commercial product. It was included in Python standard library until 2.7. In 2009, Tokyo Cabinet was released that was superseded by Kyoto Cabinet that support both transaction and ordered keys. In 2011, LMDB was created to replace Berkeley DB in OpenLDAP. There is also Google's LevelDB that was forked by Facebook in 2012 as RocksDB. In 2014, WiredTiger, successor of Berkeley DB was acquired by MongoDB and is since 2019 the primary backend of MongoDB database. Other notable implementation of the OKVS paradigm are Sophia and SQLite3 LSM extension. Another notable use of OKVS paradigm is the multi-model database system called ArangoDB based on RocksDB. Some NewSQL databases are supported by ordered key–value stores. JanusGraph, a property graph database, has both a Berkeley DB backend and FoundationDB backend. == Key concepts == === Lexicographic encoding === There are algorithms that encode basic data types (boolean, string, number) and composition of those data types inside sorted containers (tuple, list, vector) that preserve their natural ordering. It is possible to work with an ordered key–value store without having to work directly with bytes. In FoundationDB, it is called the tuple layer. === Range query === Inside an OKVS, keys are ordered, and because of that it is possible to do range queries. A range query retrieves all keys between two specified keys, ensuring that the fetched keys are returned in a sorted order. === Subspaces === === Key composition === One can construct key spaces to build higher level abstractions. The idea is to construct keys, that takes advantage of the ordered nature of the top level key space. When taking advantage of the ordered nature of the key space, one can query ranges of keys that have particular pattern. === Denormalization === Denormalization, as in, repeating the same piece of data in multiple subspace is common practice. It allows to create secondary representation, also called indices, that will allow to speed up queries. == Higher level abstractions == The following abstraction or databases were built on top ordered key–value stores: Timeseries database, Record Database, also known as Row store databases, they behave similarly to what is dubbed RDBMS, Tuple Stores, also known as Triple Store or Quad Store but also Generic Tuple Store, Document database, that mimics MongoDB API, Full-text search Geographic Information Systems Property Graph Versioned Data Vector space database for Approximate Nearest Neighbor All those abstraction can co-exist with the same OKVS database and when ACID is supported, the operations happens with the guarantees offered by the transaction system. == Feature matrix == == Use-cases == OKVS are useful to implement two strategies: optimize a small feature e.g. to make a 10% improvement in read or write latency; the second strategy is to take advantage of the distributed nature of FoundationDB, and TiKV, for which there is no equivalent at very large scale in resilience. Both users need to re-implement the needed high level abstractions, because there are no portable ready-to-use libraries of high-level abstraction. There is still a complex balance, of complexity, maintainability, fine-tuning, and readily available features that makes it still a choice of experts. Sometime more specialized data-structures can be faster than a high-level abstraction on top of an OKVS. Another interest of OKVS paradigm stems from it simple, and versatile interface, that makes it an interesting target for experimental storage algorithms, and data structures.
Read more →